Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit and Bank Guarantees The Company had approximately $210 million in outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees as of September 30, 2017 that are primarily held in connection with safeguarding consumer funds, lease arrangements, and certain agent agreements. The letters of credit and bank guarantees have expiration dates through 2021, with many having a one-year renewal option. The Company expects to renew the letters of credit and bank guarantees prior to expiration in most circumstances. Litigation and Related Contingencies The Company is subject to certain claims and litigation that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant, and in some cases, criminal charges. The Company regularly evaluates the status of legal matters to assess whether a loss is probable and reasonably estimable in determining whether an accrual is appropriate. Furthermore, in determining whether disclosure is appropriate, the Company evaluates each legal matter to assess if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. Unless otherwise specified below, the Company believes that there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred for each of the matters described below. For those matters that the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and can reasonably estimate the loss or potential loss, the reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company’s recorded liability for probable and estimable losses was approximately $165 million as of September 30, 2017. For the remaining matters, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons: (a) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (b) specific damages have not been sought; (c) damage claims are unsupported and/or unreasonable; (d) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (e) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (f) novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories are being asserted. The outcomes of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible. It is also inherently difficult to estimate the amount of any loss and there may be matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but not currently estimable. Accordingly, actual losses may be in excess of the established liability or the range of reasonably possible loss. United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements In late November 2016, the Company entered into discussions with the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California ("USAO-CDCA"), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("USAO-EDPA"), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ("USAO-MDPA"), and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”) to resolve the investigations by the USAO-CDCA, USAO-EDPA, USAO-MDPA, and USAO-SDFL (collectively, the “USAOs”) (collectively, the “USAO Investigations”). On January 19, 2017, the Company announced that it, or its subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (“WUFSI”), had entered into (1) a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with the DOJ and the USAOs; (2) a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment (the “Consent Order”) with the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) resolving claims by the FTC alleging unfair acts and practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and for violations of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule; and (3) a Consent to the Assessment of Civil Money Penalty with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the United States Department of Treasury (the “FinCEN Agreement”), to resolve the respective investigations of those agencies. FinCEN provided notice to the Company dated December 16, 2016 of its investigation regarding possible violations of the United States Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA"). On January 31, 2017, the Company entered into assurances of discontinuance/assurances of voluntary compliance with the attorneys general of 49 U.S. states and the District of Columbia named therein to resolve investigations by the state attorneys general, which sought information and documents relating to money transfers sent from the United States to certain countries, consumer fraud complaints that the Company had received and the Company's procedures to help identify and prevent fraudulent transfers. On April 12, 2017, the Company settled with the one remaining state attorney general under effectively the same terms as the January 31, 2017 agreement with no additional monetary payment required. The agreements with the state attorneys general are collectively referred to herein as the "State AG Agreement." The DPA, Consent Order, FinCEN Agreement, and State AG Agreement are collectively referred to herein as the "Joint Settlement Agreements." Pursuant to the DPA, the USAOs filed a two-count criminal information in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, charging the Company with aiding and abetting wire fraud and willfully failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering ("AML") program. The USAOs agreed that if the Company fully complies with all of its obligations under the DPA, the USAOs will, at the conclusion of the DPA’s term, seek dismissal with prejudice of the criminal information filed against the Company. Under the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company was required to (1) pay an aggregate amount of $586 million to the DOJ to be used to reimburse consumers who were the victims of third-party fraud conducted through the Company’s money transfer services (the “Compensation Payment”), (2) pay an aggregate amount of $5 million to the State Attorneys General to reimburse investigative, enforcement, and other costs, and (3) retain an independent compliance auditor for three years to review and assess actions taken by the Company under the Consent Order to further enhance its oversight of agents and protection of consumers. The FinCEN Agreement also set forth a civil penalty of $184 million, the full amount of which was deemed satisfied by the Compensation Payment, without any additional payment or non-monetary obligations. No separate payment to the FTC was required under the Joint Settlement Agreements. The Company paid the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General during the first half of 2017. The Company had accrued the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016. In the second quarter of 2017, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company engaged an independent compliance auditor, and during the three months ended September 30, 2017, the Company accrued an additional $8 million of expenses related to the independent compliance auditor. The Joint Settlement Agreements also require, among other things, the Company to adopt certain new or enhanced practices with respect to its compliance program relating to consumer reimbursement, agent due diligence, agent training, monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping by the Company and its agents, consumer fraud disclosures, agent suspensions and terminations, and other items. The changes in the Company’s compliance program required by the Joint Settlement Agreements will have adverse effects on the Company’s business, including additional costs and potential loss of business. The Company could also face actions from other regulators as a result of the Joint Settlement Agreements. In addition, if the Company fails to comply with the Joint Settlement Agreements, it could face criminal prosecution, civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other regulatory consequences. Any or all of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Shareholder Derivative Actions On January 13, 2014, Natalie Gordon served the Company with a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint and Jury Demand that was filed in District Court, Douglas County, Colorado naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, one of its former executive officers, one of its former directors, and all but one of its current directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement against all of the individual defendants and unjust enrichment against the President and Chief Executive Officer and the former executive officer based on allegations that between February 12, 2012 to October 30, 2012, the individual defendants made or caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements or failed to make adequate disclosures regarding the effects of a settlement agreement signed on February 11, 2010 between WUFSI and the State of Arizona regarding WUFSI's AML compliance programs along the United States and Mexico border ("Southwest Border Agreement"), including regarding the anticipated costs of compliance with the Southwest Border Agreement, potential effects on business operations, and Company projections. Plaintiff also alleges that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to lack requisite internal controls, caused or allowed financial statements to be misstated, and caused the Company to be subject to the costs, expenses and liabilities associated with City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. The Western Union Company, et al., a lawsuit that was subsequently renamed and dismissed. Plaintiff further alleges that the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and the former executive officer received excessive compensation based on the allegedly inaccurate financial statements. On March 12, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings in the case during the pendency of certain of the shareholder derivative actions described below. In 2014, Stanley Lieblein, R. Andre Klein, City of Cambridge Retirement System, Mayar Fund Ltd, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan, and The Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (or were removed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado) naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and certain current and former directors and a former executive officer as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. On January 5, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing City of Cambridge Retirement System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan as co-lead plaintiffs. On February 4, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated shareholder derivative complaint naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, two of its former executive officers and all but two of its current directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint asserts separate claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants and the officer defendants, claims against all of the individual defendants for violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), corporate waste and unjust enrichment, and a claim against the former executive officer for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The breach of fiduciary duty claim against the director defendants includes allegations that they declined to implement an effective AML compliance system after receiving numerous red flags indicating prolonged willful illegality, obstructed the efforts of the monitor assigned to the Company pursuant to the Southwest Border Agreement to impose effective compliance systems on the Company, failed to take action in response to alleged Western Union management efforts to undermine the monitor, reappointed the same directors to the Audit Committee and Corporate Governance and Public Policy Committees constituting a majority of those committees between 2006 and 2014, appointed a majority of directors to the Compliance Committee who were directly involved in overseeing the alleged misconduct as members of the Audit Committee and the Corporate Governance and Public Policy Committee, caused the Company to materially breach the Southwest Border Agreement, caused the Company to repurchase its stock at artificially inflated prices, awarded the Company’s senior executives excessive compensation despite their responsibility for the Company’s alleged willful non-compliance with state and federal AML laws, and failed to prevent the former executive officer from misappropriating and profiting from nonpublic information when making allegedly unlawful stock sales. The breach of fiduciary duty claim against the officer defendants includes allegations that they caused the Company and allowed its agents to ignore the recording and reporting requirements of the BSA and parallel AML laws and regulations for a prolonged period of time, authorized and implemented AML policies and practices that they knew or should have known to be inadequate, caused the Company to fail to comply with the Southwest Border Agreement and refused to implement and maintain adequate internal controls. The claim for violations of section 14(a) of the Exchange Act includes allegations that the individual defendants caused the Company to issue proxy statements in 2012, 2013 and 2014 containing materially incomplete and inaccurate disclosures - in particular, by failing to disclose the extent to which the Company’s financial results depended on the non-compliance with AML requirements, the Board’s awareness of the regulatory and criminal enforcement actions in real time pursuant to the 2003 Consent Agreement with the California Department of Financial Institutions and that the directors were not curing violations and preventing misconduct, the extent to which the Board considered the flood of increasingly severe red flags in their determination to re-nominate certain directors to the Audit Committee between 2006 and 2010, and the extent to which the Board considered ongoing regulatory and criminal investigations in awarding multi-million dollar compensation packages to senior executives. The corporate waste claim includes allegations that the individual defendants paid or approved the payment of undeserved executive and director compensation based on the illegal conduct alleged in the consolidated complaint, which exposed the Company to civil liabilities and fines. The corporate waste claim also includes allegations that the individual defendants made improper statements and omissions, which forced the Company to expend resources in defending itself in City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. The Western Union Company, et al., a lawsuit that was subsequently renamed and dismissed, authorized the repurchase of over $1.565 billion of the Company’s stock at prices they knew or recklessly were aware, were artificially inflated, failed to maintain sufficient internal controls over the Company’s marketing and sales process, failed to consider the interests of the Company and its shareholders, and failed to conduct the proper supervision. The claim for unjust enrichment includes allegations that the individual defendants derived compensation, fees and other benefits from the Company and were otherwise unjustly enriched by their wrongful acts and omissions in managing the Company. The claim for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information includes allegations that the former executive sold Company stock while knowing material, nonpublic information that would have significantly reduced the market price of the stock. On March 16, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ collective motion to dismiss without prejudice, denying as moot a separate motion to dismiss that was filed by the former executive officer, and staying the order for 30 days, within which plaintiffs could file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in the order. On May 2, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs filed a verified amended consolidated shareholder derivative complaint naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, eight of its current directors (including the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, who also serves as a director) and one of its former directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The amended complaint, among other things, drops the claims against the former executive officer named in the prior complaint, realleges and narrows the breach of fiduciary duty claims, and drops the remaining claims. On June 15, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 1, 2016, defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the amended complaint with allegations relating to the DPA, the criminal information filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the FTC’s January 19, 2017 Complaint for Permanent Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and the Consent Order referenced in the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements section above. The same day, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to supplement the complaint, ordered them to file a second amended complaint, denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted defendants leave to renew the motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended derivative complaint. On April 21, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On June 9, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On July 14, 2017, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On October 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Due to the stage of the actions described above under "Shareholder Derivative Actions," the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with these actions. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in all of these matters. Other Matters The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel’s fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel’s fees, as well as other expenses are being paid. On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller’s position that Western Union’s deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement “will not satisfy Western Union’s obligations to report and remit funds” under California’s unclaimed property law, and that “Western Union will remain liable to the State of California” for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also expressed concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other expenses. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members’ wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel’s fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay’s bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay’s motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class consisting of “All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.’s electronic payment services (iii) during the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the present.” Pincus also filed a motion to file her motion under seal. On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus’ motion for class certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment on Pincus’ remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus’ class certification motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay’s summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims. On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus’ Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s summary judgment motion, entered judgment in favor of Speedpay and ordered the Court clerk to close the case. On July 5, 2017, Pincus filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Due to this pending appeal, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the effectiveness of the Company’s fraud prevention program and the program’s compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2) the development and enhancement of the Company’s global compliance policies and AML program; and (3) the Company’s compliance with regulatory requirements. On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted that motion on March 30, 2017, and transferred the case. On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by Martin Herman described above. On February 22, 2017, UA Local 13 Pension Fund filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The alleged factual bases are similar to and the defendants, class period and claims are the same as those in the purported class action complaints filed by Martin Herman and Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust described above, except that the plaintiff's claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is against all of the defendants. On March 10, 2017, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted the motion and transferred the case. On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust, and UA Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed motions to consolidate the three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2017, the Court granted the motion to consolidate. On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2017, the Court dismissed the Martin Herman action at the plaintiff’s request. The consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. On February 13, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary, Western Union Payment Services Ireland Limited (“WUPSIL”), was served with a writ of accusation from the National Court of Spain. The writ charges 98 former Western Union money transfer agents or agent representatives with fraud and money laundering in connection with consumer fraud scams they allegedly perpetrated using Western Union money transfer transactions. The writ also names WUPSIL as a civil defendant, allegedly responsible under Spanish law to pay any portion of the alleged amount in victim losses that cannot be repaid by any of the criminal defendants who are convicted. The Company expects that WUPSIL will be required to guarantee or provide security to cover the alleged victim losses plus potential interest and other costs. Due to the preliminary stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the amount of loss, if any, associated with this matter. On March 31, 2017, the Company received a request for the production of documents from the NYDFS, following up on a meeting the Company had with the NYDFS on March 7, 2017. The requests pertain to the Company’s oversight of one current and two former Western Union agents located in New York state. The two former agents were identified in the DPA described in the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements section above, and were terminated as agents by the Company prior to 2013. The Company complied with all requests and produced all requested documents to the NYDFS. On July 28, 2017, the NYDFS informed the Company that the facts set forth in the DPA regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering programs over the 2004 through 2012 period give the NYDFS a basis to take additional enforcement action. The NYDFS proposed a resolution of the matter involving, among other things, a payment to the NYDFS. The Company is continuing to engage in discussions with the NYDFS in an effort to reach an appropriate resolution of this matter. Due to the stage and nature of the discussions, the Company has accrued $49 million toward a possible resolution of this matter (the "State Regulator Matter"). However, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to resolve this matter for this amount. If the matter is not settled and proceeds to civil litigation, the NYDFS would seek to impose fines, damages, or other regulatory consequences. Resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow. If the NYDFS files a complaint against the Company, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. In addition to the principal matters described above, the Company is a party to a variety of other legal matters that arise in the normal course of the Company's business. While the results of these other legal matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect either individually or in the aggregate on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. On January 26, 2006, the First Data Corporation ("First Data") Board of Directors announced its intention to pursue the distribution of all of its money transfer and consumer payments business and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). The Spin-off resulted in the formation of the Company and these assets and businesses no longer being part of First Data. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement with First Data in connection with the Spin-off, First Data and the Company are each liable for, and agreed to perform, all liabilities with respect to their respective businesses. In addition, the separation and distribution agreement also provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of the Company's business with the Company and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of First Data's retained businesses with First Data. The Company also entered into a tax allocation agreement ("Tax Allocation Agreement") that sets forth the rights and obligations of First Data and the Company with respect to taxes imposed on their respective businesses both prior to and after the Spin-off as well as potential tax obligations for which the Company may be liable in conjunction with the Spin-off (see Note 11).

Commitments and Contingencies

Letters of Credit and Bank Guarantees

The Company had approximately $210 million in outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees as of September 30, 2017 that are primarily held in connection with safeguarding consumer funds, lease arrangements, and certain agent agreements. The letters of credit and bank guarantees have expiration dates through 2021, with many having a one-year renewal option. The Company expects to renew the letters of credit and bank guarantees prior to expiration in most circumstances.

Litigation and Related Contingencies

The Company is subject to certain claims and litigation that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant, and in some cases, criminal charges. The Company regularly evaluates the status of legal matters to assess whether a loss is probable and reasonably estimable in determining whether an accrual is appropriate. Furthermore, in determining whether disclosure is appropriate, the Company evaluates each legal matter to assess if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. Unless otherwise specified below, the Company believes that there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred for each of the matters described below.

For those matters that the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and can reasonably estimate the loss or potential loss, the reasonably possible potential litigation losses in excess of the Company’s recorded liability for probable and estimable losses was approximately $165 million as of September 30, 2017. For the remaining matters, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons: (a) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (b) specific damages have not been sought; (c) damage claims are unsupported and/or unreasonable; (d) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (e) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (f) novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories are being asserted.

The outcomes of legal actions are unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible. It is also inherently difficult to estimate the amount of any loss and there may be matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible but not currently estimable. Accordingly, actual losses may be in excess of the established liability or the range of reasonably possible loss.

United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements

In late November 2016, the Company entered into discussions with the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California ("USAO-CDCA"), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("USAO-EDPA"), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ("USAO-MDPA"), and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”) to resolve the investigations by the USAO-CDCA, USAO-EDPA, USAO-MDPA, and USAO-SDFL (collectively, the “USAOs”) (collectively, the “USAO Investigations”). On January 19, 2017, the Company announced that it, or its subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (“WUFSI”), had entered into (1) a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with the DOJ and the USAOs; (2) a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment (the “Consent Order”) with the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) resolving claims by the FTC alleging unfair acts and practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act and for violations of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule; and (3) a Consent to the Assessment of Civil Money Penalty with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the United States Department of Treasury (the “FinCEN Agreement”), to resolve the respective investigations of those agencies. FinCEN provided notice to the Company dated December 16, 2016 of its investigation regarding possible violations of the United States Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA"). On January 31, 2017, the Company entered into assurances of discontinuance/assurances of voluntary compliance with the attorneys general of 49 U.S. states and the District of Columbia named therein to resolve investigations by the state attorneys general, which sought information and documents relating to money transfers sent from the United States to certain countries, consumer fraud complaints that the Company had received and the Company's procedures to help identify and prevent fraudulent transfers. On April 12, 2017, the Company settled with the one remaining state attorney general under effectively the same terms as the January 31, 2017 agreement with no additional monetary payment required. The agreements with the state attorneys general are collectively referred to herein as the "State AG Agreement." The DPA, Consent Order, FinCEN Agreement, and State AG Agreement are collectively referred to herein as the "Joint Settlement Agreements."

Pursuant to the DPA, the USAOs filed a two-count criminal information in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, charging the Company with aiding and abetting wire fraud and willfully failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering ("AML") program. The USAOs agreed that if the Company fully complies with all of its obligations under the DPA, the USAOs will, at the conclusion of the DPA’s term, seek dismissal with prejudice of the criminal information filed against the Company.

Under the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company was required to (1) pay an aggregate amount of $586 million to the DOJ to be used to reimburse consumers who were the victims of third-party fraud conducted through the Company’s money transfer services (the “Compensation Payment”), (2) pay an aggregate amount of $5 million to the State Attorneys General to reimburse investigative, enforcement, and other costs, and (3) retain an independent compliance auditor for three years to review and assess actions taken by the Company under the Consent Order to further enhance its oversight of agents and protection of consumers. The FinCEN Agreement also set forth a civil penalty of $184 million, the full amount of which was deemed satisfied by the Compensation Payment, without any additional payment or non-monetary obligations. No separate payment to the FTC was required under the Joint Settlement Agreements. The Company paid the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General during the first half of 2017. The Company had accrued the Compensation Payment and the aggregate amount due to the State Attorneys General in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016. In the second quarter of 2017, pursuant to the terms of the Joint Settlement Agreements, the Company engaged an independent compliance auditor, and during the three months ended September 30, 2017, the Company accrued an additional $8 million of expenses related to the independent compliance auditor.

The Joint Settlement Agreements also require, among other things, the Company to adopt certain new or enhanced practices with respect to its compliance program relating to consumer reimbursement, agent due diligence, agent training, monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping by the Company and its agents, consumer fraud disclosures, agent suspensions and terminations, and other items. The changes in the Company’s compliance program required by the Joint Settlement Agreements will have adverse effects on the Company’s business, including additional costs and potential loss of business. The Company could also face actions from other regulators as a result of the Joint Settlement Agreements. In addition, if the Company fails to comply with the Joint Settlement Agreements, it could face criminal prosecution, civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or other regulatory consequences. Any or all of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

On January 13, 2014, Natalie Gordon served the Company with a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint and Jury Demand that was filed in District Court, Douglas County, Colorado naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, one of its former executive officers, one of its former directors, and all but one of its current directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement against all of the individual defendants and unjust enrichment against the President and Chief Executive Officer and the former executive officer based on allegations that between February 12, 2012 to October 30, 2012, the individual defendants made or caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements or failed to make adequate disclosures regarding the effects of a settlement agreement signed on February 11, 2010 between WUFSI and the State of Arizona regarding WUFSI's AML compliance programs along the United States and Mexico border ("Southwest Border Agreement"), including regarding the anticipated costs of compliance with the Southwest Border Agreement, potential effects on business operations, and Company projections. Plaintiff also alleges that the individual defendants caused or allowed the Company to lack requisite internal controls, caused or allowed financial statements to be misstated, and caused the Company to be subject to the costs, expenses and liabilities associated with City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. The Western Union Company, et al., a lawsuit that was subsequently renamed and dismissed. Plaintiff further alleges that the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and the former executive officer received excessive compensation based on the allegedly inaccurate financial statements. On March 12, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings in the case during the pendency of certain of the shareholder derivative actions described below.

In 2014, Stanley Lieblein, R. Andre Klein, City of Cambridge Retirement System, Mayar Fund Ltd, Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan, and The Police Retirement System of St. Louis filed shareholder derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (or were removed to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado) naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and certain current and former directors and a former executive officer as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. On January 5, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the actions and appointing City of Cambridge Retirement System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan as co-lead plaintiffs. On February 4, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a verified consolidated shareholder derivative complaint naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, two of its former executive officers and all but two of its current directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint asserts separate claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants and the officer defendants, claims against all of the individual defendants for violations of section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), corporate waste and unjust enrichment, and a claim against the former executive officer for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information. The breach of fiduciary duty claim against the director defendants includes allegations that they declined to implement an effective AML compliance system after receiving numerous red flags indicating prolonged willful illegality, obstructed the efforts of the monitor assigned to the Company pursuant to the Southwest Border Agreement to impose effective compliance systems on the Company, failed to take action in response to alleged Western Union management efforts to undermine the monitor, reappointed the same directors to the Audit Committee and Corporate Governance and Public Policy Committees constituting a majority of those committees between 2006 and 2014, appointed a majority of directors to the Compliance Committee who were directly involved in overseeing the alleged misconduct as members of the Audit Committee and the Corporate Governance and Public Policy Committee, caused the Company to materially breach the Southwest Border Agreement, caused the Company to repurchase its stock at artificially inflated prices, awarded the Company’s senior executives excessive compensation despite their responsibility for the Company’s alleged willful non-compliance with state and federal AML laws, and failed to prevent the former executive officer from misappropriating and profiting from nonpublic information when making allegedly unlawful stock sales. The breach of fiduciary duty claim against the officer defendants includes allegations that they caused the Company and allowed its agents to ignore the recording and reporting requirements of the BSA and parallel AML laws and regulations for a prolonged period of time, authorized and implemented AML policies and practices that they knew or should have known to be inadequate, caused the Company to fail to comply with the Southwest Border Agreement and refused to implement and maintain adequate internal controls. The claim for violations of section 14(a) of the Exchange Act includes allegations that the individual defendants caused the Company to issue proxy statements in 2012, 2013 and 2014 containing materially incomplete and inaccurate disclosures - in particular, by failing to disclose the extent to which the Company’s financial results depended on the non-compliance with AML requirements, the Board’s awareness of the regulatory and criminal enforcement actions in real time pursuant to the 2003 Consent Agreement with the California Department of Financial Institutions and that the directors were not curing violations and preventing misconduct, the extent to which the Board considered the flood of increasingly severe red flags in their determination to re-nominate certain directors to the Audit Committee between 2006 and 2010, and the extent to which the Board considered ongoing regulatory and criminal investigations in awarding multi-million dollar compensation packages to senior executives. The corporate waste claim includes allegations that the individual defendants paid or approved the payment of undeserved executive and director compensation based on the illegal conduct alleged in the consolidated complaint, which exposed the Company to civil liabilities and fines. The corporate waste claim also includes allegations that the individual defendants made improper statements and omissions, which forced the Company to expend resources in defending itself in City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. The Western Union Company, et al., a lawsuit that was subsequently renamed and dismissed, authorized the repurchase of over $1.565 billion of the Company’s stock at prices they knew or recklessly were aware, were artificially inflated, failed to maintain sufficient internal controls over the Company’s marketing and sales process, failed to consider the interests of the Company and its shareholders, and failed to conduct the proper supervision. The claim for unjust enrichment includes allegations that the individual defendants derived compensation, fees and other benefits from the Company and were otherwise unjustly enriched by their wrongful acts and omissions in managing the Company. The claim for breach of fiduciary duties for insider selling and misappropriation of information includes allegations that the former executive sold Company stock while knowing material, nonpublic information that would have significantly reduced the market price of the stock. On March 16, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court entered an order granting the defendants’ collective motion to dismiss without prejudice, denying as moot a separate motion to dismiss that was filed by the former executive officer, and staying the order for 30 days, within which plaintiffs could file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in the order. On May 2, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs filed a verified amended consolidated shareholder derivative complaint naming the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, eight of its current directors (including the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, who also serves as a director) and one of its former directors as individual defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The amended complaint, among other things, drops the claims against the former executive officer named in the prior complaint, realleges and narrows the breach of fiduciary duty claims, and drops the remaining claims. On June 15, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated shareholder derivative complaint. On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 1, 2016, defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the amended complaint with allegations relating to the DPA, the criminal information filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the FTC’s January 19, 2017 Complaint for Permanent Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and the Consent Order referenced in the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements section above. The same day, the Court granted plaintiffs’ request to supplement the complaint, ordered them to file a second amended complaint, denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted defendants leave to renew the motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended derivative complaint. On April 21, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On June 9, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On July 14, 2017, defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On September 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended derivative complaint. On October 25, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Due to the stage of the actions described above under "Shareholder Derivative Actions," the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with these actions. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in all of these matters.

Other Matters

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel’s fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel’s fees, as well as other expenses are being paid. On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller’s position that Western Union’s deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement “will not satisfy Western Union’s obligations to report and remit funds” under California’s unclaimed property law, and that “Western Union will remain liable to the State of California” for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also expressed concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other expenses.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members’ wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel’s fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. ("Speedpay"), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment through Speedpay’s bill payment services using a credit card and were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification. On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1) under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2) for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay’s motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 1, 2015, Pincus filed a second amended complaint that revised her factual allegations, but added no new claims. On December 18, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On May 20, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus' Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 7, 2016, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 17, 2016, Speedpay filed a reply brief in support of the motion. On October 28, 2016, Pincus filed a motion seeking class certification. The motion seeks the certification of a class consisting of “All (i) persons in Florida (ii) who paid Speedpay, Inc. a fee for using Speedpay, Inc.’s electronic payment services (iii) during the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in this action through the present.” Pincus also filed a motion to file her motion under seal. On November 4, 2016, the Court denied Pincus’ motion for class certification without prejudice and motion to seal and ordered her to file a new motion that redacts proprietary and private information. Later that day, Pincus filed a redacted version of the motion. On November 7, 2016, Speedpay filed a motion for summary judgment on Pincus’ remaining claims. On December 15, 2016, Speedpay filed an opposition to Pincus’ class certification motion. The same day, Pincus filed an opposition to Speedpay’s summary judgment motion and requested summary judgment on her individual and class claims. On January 12, 2017, Speedpay filed a reply in support of its summary judgment motion and Pincus filed a reply in support of her class certification motion. On March 28, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Pincus’ Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act and federal RICO claims. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Speedpay’s summary judgment motion, entered judgment in favor of Speedpay and ordered the Court clerk to close the case. On July 5, 2017, Pincus filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Due to this pending appeal, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On January 26, 2017, Martin Herman filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants and a claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 24, 2012 through January 19, 2017, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the effectiveness of the Company’s fraud prevention program and the program’s compliance with applicable law and best practices; (2) the development and enhancement of the Company’s global compliance policies and AML program; and (3) the Company’s compliance with regulatory requirements. On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue of the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted that motion on March 30, 2017, and transferred the case.

On February 22, 2017, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The defendants, class period, claims and bases are the same as those in the purported class action complaint filed by Martin Herman described above.

On February 22, 2017, UA Local 13 Pension Fund filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The alleged factual bases are similar to and the defendants, class period and claims are the same as those in the purported class action complaints filed by Martin Herman and Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust described above, except that the plaintiff's claim under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act is against all of the defendants. On March 10, 2017, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court granted the motion and transferred the case.

On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs in the Martin Herman, Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust, and UA Local 13 Pension Fund actions filed motions to consolidate the three cases and to be appointed lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2017, the Court granted the motion to consolidate. On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2017, the Court dismissed the Martin Herman action at the plaintiff’s request. The consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter.

On February 13, 2017, the Company’s subsidiary, Western Union Payment Services Ireland Limited (“WUPSIL”), was served with a writ of accusation from the National Court of Spain. The writ charges 98 former Western Union money transfer agents or agent representatives with fraud and money laundering in connection with consumer fraud scams they allegedly perpetrated using Western Union money transfer transactions. The writ also names WUPSIL as a civil defendant, allegedly responsible under Spanish law to pay any portion of the alleged amount in victim losses that cannot be repaid by any of the criminal defendants who are convicted. The Company expects that WUPSIL will be required to guarantee or provide security to cover the alleged victim losses plus potential interest and other costs. Due to the preliminary stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the amount of loss, if any, associated with this matter.

On March 31, 2017, the Company received a request for the production of documents from the NYDFS, following up on a meeting the Company had with the NYDFS on March 7, 2017. The requests pertain to the Company’s oversight of one current and two former Western Union agents located in New York state. The two former agents were identified in the DPA described in the United States Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements section above, and were terminated as agents by the Company prior to 2013. The Company complied with all requests and produced all requested documents to the NYDFS. On July 28, 2017, the NYDFS informed the Company that the facts set forth in the DPA regarding the Company’s anti-money laundering programs over the 2004 through 2012 period give the NYDFS a basis to take additional enforcement action. The NYDFS proposed a resolution of the matter involving, among other things, a payment to the NYDFS. The Company is continuing to engage in discussions with the NYDFS in an effort to reach an appropriate resolution of this matter. Due to the stage and nature of the discussions, the Company has accrued $49 million toward a possible resolution of this matter (the "State Regulator Matter"). However, there is no certainty that the Company will be able to resolve this matter for this amount. If the matter is not settled and proceeds to civil litigation, the NYDFS would seek to impose fines, damages, or other regulatory consequences. Resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow. If the NYDFS files a complaint against the Company, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.

In addition to the principal matters described above, the Company is a party to a variety of other legal matters that arise in the normal course of the Company's business. While the results of these other legal matters cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect either individually or in the aggregate on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

On January 26, 2006, the First Data Corporation ("First Data") Board of Directors announced its intention to pursue the distribution of all of its money transfer and consumer payments business and its interest in a Western Union money transfer agent, as well as its related assets, including real estate, through a tax-free distribution to First Data shareholders (the "Spin-off"). The Spin-off resulted in the formation of the Company and these assets and businesses no longer being part of First Data. Pursuant to the separation and distribution agreement with First Data in connection with the Spin-off, First Data and the Company are each liable for, and agreed to perform, all liabilities with respect to their respective businesses. In addition, the separation and distribution agreement also provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of the Company's business with the Company and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of First Data's retained businesses with First Data. The Company also entered into a tax allocation agreement ("Tax Allocation Agreement") that sets forth the rights and obligations of First Data and the Company with respect to taxes imposed on their respective businesses both prior to and after the Spin-off as well as potential tax obligations for which the Company may be liable in conjunction with the Spin-off (see Note 11).